If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: From VB.net to C#

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cab9174.3327155@news.devx.com...
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:08:34 +1000, "Michael Culley"
> <mike@vbdotcom.com> wrote:
>
> >The end result is about 45 well spaced pages. I'd say it took him a few
days
> >to write and netted him a small fortune.
>
> 'nuff said!
>
> MM

Re: From VB.net to C#

I have to agree and disagree with mike. The document was pretty short and
expensive for what it was. There could have been alot more in it. One of its
major selling points was that it had 61 pages but alot of those pages were
intentional fluff and the rest were well padded.

Re: From VB.net to C#

This is ridiculous. You'd typically pay at least $300-600 to hear Dan
Appleman speak for a day, during which he couldn't possibly cover 61 pages
of content.

$9.95 is a bargain. But if you'd like him to add lots of pictures and
"Hello, World!" code samples to make it 300 pages long, so you can pay $30+
for the printed version, I'm sure Dan will accomodate you.

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cab9036.3008612@news.devx.com...
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:07:41 -0800, "Patrick Meader"
> <pmeader@fawcette.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Mike:
> >
> >>>So why don't we all write to the publishers and demand that they reduce
> >the number of pages and increase the price? <<
> >
> >You probably have a better idea there than you think.
>
> That wasn't a better idea, that was a bloody stupid idea. I only wrote
> it to get the crassly obvious non-value for money of $9.95 for 61
> pages that *I* have to download and print into some sense of
> proportion for people! You must *know* why it was $9.95 and not, say,
> $1.95! It's because .Net is ravishingly new and people are gasping for
> information, any information! Ergo the price goes up! The law of
> supply and demand. Still doesn't make it something I could ever
> defend.
>
> MM

Re: From VB.net to C#

>
> VB.NET is not similar to VB6. It's a completely new language. If you want
to
> use the new OO features, VB6 knowledge gain you nothing. If not, stick
with
> VB6.

This is gross hyperbole. VB .NET is easy to learn if you're experienced in
VB6 or even VBA. C# on the other hand is still Greek if you're not a C or
C++ programmer. I'm not saying it wouldn't be fairly easy to learn C#, but
VB .NET gives you a big head start if your're a VB6 programmer. Also, the
background compilation in the IDE, case-insensitive code, and keywords that
mean something to human beings make anyone more productive, regardless of
their background.

Re: From VB.net to C#

I don't have the book here with me at the moment, and it has been a
couple of months since I read it. So I can't mention any specific
details at the moment, that'll have to wait a couple of days.

But if you really start looking for differences between VB.NET and C#,
you'll find lots of little things that could be important to you. And
I just remember missing many of them in the book, he mostly mentioned
the big differences. That was kinda surprising, and not like the stuff
Appleman has written before.

Re: From VB.net to C#

I guess you'll have to ask him that question. FWIW I have read the guide and
it is a waste of 9.95. Basically states the obvious.

>
> >But it's written by your hero Dan Appleman.
> >Surely that makes it worth the 9.95 .
>
> How come he produced "Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to the Win32
> Api" with over 1,500 pages and hundreds of MB on the accompanying
> CD-ROM all for the princely sum of $60? And no downloading!
>
> MM

Re: From VB.net to C#

> >This is gross hyperbole.
>
> One of the VB gurus, Daniel Appleman, wrote in his book "Moving to
> VB.NET:
>
> "VB.NET is a 'Visual Basic' but it is not Visual Basic as it has
> evolved from VB1 to VB6. It is a different language."

Yes, I have read that book, and to *some* extent, and I reemphisize *some*,
it is a new language.
> That's how I see it, too. And I'm not even a guru.

Well, we knew that!

Now, how foreign is the following code? And I want you to be honest and none
of that poo poo bullsh*t. This is VB.NET code ported from Karl Peterson's
CStopWatch Class which you can find here:http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?samples.htm and it is the one labeled
StopWatch.zip.

' ********************************************
' Public Properties
' ********************************************
Public ReadOnly Property ElapsedMilliseconds() As Integer
Get
' Read-Only: return elapsed time in milliseconds
' since stopwatch was reset.
Return (timeGetTime() - m_StartTime)
End Get
End Property

Public ReadOnly Property MinimumResolution() As Integer
Get
' Read-Only: return minimum number of milliseconds
' timer is capable of resolving.
Return m_PeriodMin
End Get
End Property

Public ReadOnly Property MaximumResolution() As Integer
Get
' Read-Only: return maximum number of milliseconds
' timer is capable of resolving.
Return m_PeriodMax
End Get
End Property

Re: From VB.net to C#

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cac338f.6723551@news.devx.com...
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:17:05 -0800, "Scott Hutchinson"
> <scotthutchinson@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >This is gross hyperbole.
>
> One of the VB gurus, Daniel Appleman, wrote in his book "Moving to
> VB.NET:
>
> "VB.NET is a 'Visual Basic' but it is not Visual Basic as it has
> evolved from VB1 to VB6. It is a different language."

That's Dan *opinion*. To VB's creators and many users, this is just another
[albeit radical] evolution of the dialect of BASIC that underlies VB.

FWIW, I don't agree with Dan's opinion. If VB.NET is a "Visual Basic" and
VB1-6 were also "Visual Basic", how can it be a different language?. It is
more correctly [IMHO] a different _dialect_ of the "Visual Basic" language.

Re: From VB.net to C#

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:31:40 -0500, "Cali LaFollett"
<cali@please_no_spam_visionized.com> wrote:
>Now, how foreign is the following code? And I want you to be honest and none
>of that poo poo bullsh*t. This is VB.NET code ported from Karl Peterson's
>CStopWatch Class which you can find here:
>http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?samples.htm and it is the one labeled
>StopWatch.zip.

Now, I certainly could spend a few weeks going through all those
snippets and trying to rustle up the barest whiff of enthusiasm for
them. But, sorry, when I see things like "Public Overridable Sub
Dispose() Implements IDisposable.Dispose" I just can't stop laughing!
This is supposed to be B.A.S.I.C. is it? You know, "Beginner's" and
all that? What a joke!

Re: From VB.net to C#

Actually, it's a long-running joke. He's been trying to convince us for over
a year that Delphi (Kylix) is superior - and obviously, he wouldn't even
be able to understand half the product to begin with.

Re: From VB.net to C#

>
>Besides, it surely saved me far more than $10 compared to the cost of my
own
>time, if I were to have researched, analyzed, and organized the same info.
>

But several of the conclusions he reached were opinion. Unfortunately he
doesn't know what I need or want or can take advantage of. If he would have
stuck to the facts and didn't try and rate each category and declare a winner
it may have been a bit more useful.

Re: From VB.net to C#

Hi Michael,
"Michael Culley" <mike@vbdotcom.com> wrote in message
news:3cab79b3@10.1.10.29...
> The end result is about 45 well spaced pages. I'd say it took him a few days
> to write and netted him a small fortune.

I have no idea what it netted him, but I found it clear, easy to follow, and
well organized. A longer, denser treatise would not have served my needs as
well.

Besides, it surely saved me far more than $10 compared to the cost of my own
time, if I were to have researched, analyzed, and organized the same info.